I think you put too much stock in the authority of a professional guild. Professional-practitioner associations are not scientific associations but are professional guilds that are not only amenable to political influence, but express political opinions, thinly veiled as science, and act as political organizations. A professional guild requires consensus, particularly on issues that could have an effect on their funding, research, or practice. Western science is becoming thin on objectivity and very intolerant of dissent.

Removing homosexuality from the diagnostic manual was entirely due to homosexual activism - not science. The vote was neither unanimous nor comprehensive and the only “science” presented was a frankly biased study from 1957!

As for the ability to alter one's sexual orientation: Without any intervention whatsoever, three out of four boys who think they're gay at age l6 aren't by 25. This, according to data from the comprehensive study of sexuality by the National Health and Social Life Survey completed in 1994.

It seems to me that “reparative therapy” for homosexuals is akin to changing anyone’s individual and highly eclectic masturbatory fantasies. The high rate of recidivism for pedophiles tells us that therapy and aversive punishments rarely work for people who are driven to seek sexual relief through behaviors that are illegal, immoral, and even dangerous.

Sexual behaviors may be somewhat controllable, but our sexual imaginations are not.

More important than reparative therapy would be prevention. I think every parent would rather work on preventing homosexual orientation than have to deal with it after it is manifest.

We are abandoning parents and children by allowing the promoters of alienated sex of all kinds to control the media, research, and public discussion.

I think you put too much stock in the authority of religion. Religious practitioner groups are not reasonable groups but are religious guilds that are not only open to political influence, but express political opinions, thinly veiled as reason, and act as poltical organizations.

[The poster's sentence is 46 words long. And he was trying to be succinct.]

With every word Spinazi shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject.

This young boy of under ten knew he was gay. He didn't have the words to express it, but he knew he was different, and he knew he fancied men, not girls.

By 16 it had not changed, but he was involved in his studies, and like other boys of his age had more than enough to do to keep his exam levels high. His vocabulary had grown by then, and in his free time he read - material that was enough to make some of a more sensitive nature suicidal. In fact, that seems to have been the intent of some of the stuff. By the time he was 25 he had his life-partner. He had been with him for almost 37 years now.

He can assure you that he does not consider psychology/psychiatry helpful unless there is some psychological problem cause by being gay. Nor would he ever consider the psycho treatments as science in the normal sense of the word. He also knows that 'scientists' are not persuaded by 'activism'. A true scientist builds on facts and established truths. His/her opinion is not changed by activism.

As to so-called reparative therapy, if he had sought help all those years ago, it would have been the torture of electro-convulsive treatment. Some science, eh!

That boy is now an aging man. He realises that he was fortunate to have had the strength of mind to overcome most, if not all, of the persecution directed at him and his sort by the so-called straight world. It raises the question in his mind as to what is wrong with that world that is has to scapegoat and cause unnecessary pain to those that are different. Perhaps the need for psycho treatment really lies with the likes of Spinazi.

And then the not so subtle intention of confusing being gay with paederasty... How evil can you be! As to prevention, how would Spinazi achieve this? The lack of definition here is positively sinister.

Let me assure you, Spinazi, I have no need of it. I have lived a productive and creative life. I am still productive, although I am now advancing in years. I am a poet, a composer and a linguist (10 languages at last count). I share my achievements quite happily with others, as I believe that the gifts we receive are for others as well.

What have you done along those lines?

But then, reading between the lines, perhaps after all Spinazi is a self-hating closet gay.

Maybe if you just wear your magic underwear over your head, that will make your constant need to deny reality a little less stressful.

And the next time you're doing research, try looking into the number of divorces and utterly ruined lives brought about by your cult's insistence that if gay members just get married and have kids, they eventually straighten out.

Without any intervention whatsoever, three out of four boys who think they're gay at age l6 aren't by 25. This, according to data from the comprehensive study of sexuality by the National Health and Social Life Survey completed in 1994.

Assuming the stat is true-- do you not think it's because many teenagers (circa 1994) don't even understand what "gay" means? Read Yahoo!Answers. lol. 'I wear flip flops and listen to Lady GaGa, does this mean I'm gay?'

> I think you put too much stock in the authority of a professional guild.

I'm sorry, have we been introduced?

> Professional-practitioner associations are not scientific associations but are professional guilds that are not only amenable to political influence, but express political opinions, thinly veiled as science, and act as political organizations.

Well I never. Please feel free to run lots of words and phrases into other phrases with words, but don't thinly veil words and phrases with phrases and words.

> A professional guild requires consensus, particularly on issues that could have an effect on their funding, research, or practice.

Which is fascinating. What is this? The middle ages? Dungeons and Dragons? I'm confused.

> Western science is becoming thin on objectivity and very intolerant of dissent.

a. [citation needed]
b. No it isn't.
c. What on earth are you talking about?

> Removing homosexuality from the diagnostic manual was entirely due to homosexual activism - not science.

What on earth are you talking about? Diagnostic manual?! Sure, whatever. Damn homos shouldn't be in any manual, anyway. Manuals are for fags.

> The vote was neither unanimous nor comprehensive and the only “science” presented was a frankly biased study from 1957!

I saw a movie about giant ants once. It was called "Them!". It was made in 1957!, or in the Fifties. Or whenever. I want to go home.

> As for the ability to alter one's sexual orientation: Without any intervention whatsoever, three out of four boys who think they're gay at age l6 aren't by 25.

I want to go home. I'm sorry, sir. I'm sorry that we seem to have upset you. Why not take as many of the napkins as you'd like, and we'll be happy to throw in however many ketchup sachets you need. Please feel free to exit the restaurant at your earliest convenience.

> This, according to data from the comprehensive study of sexuality by the National Health and Social Life Survey completed in 1994.

This, apparently mid-thought in 1987 had something to do with anything.

> It seems to me that “reparative therapy” for homosexuals is akin to changing anyone’s individual and highly eclectic masturbatory fantasies.

WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! I am starting to think that I've stumbled across the internal dialogue of a paranoid schizophrenic.

> The high rate of recidivism for pedophiles tells us that therapy and aversive punishments rarely work for people who are driven to seek sexual relief through behaviors that are illegal, immoral, and even dangerous.

Fine. Sure. Why not? Whatever. Fine. Please stop saying words. Please stop using English. Every time I think I gain some insight into what it's like to be you, I wish I hadn't. I have already spent far too much time on you. You are beyond help. You are beyond parody.

> Sexual behaviors may be somewhat controllable, but our sexual imaginations are not.

Absolutely. Actually, that does actually make some kind of sense. That's the most reasonable thing you've said all night.

> More important than reparative therapy would be prevention.

And to think, we could've had two in a row. Why do you lift me up, Buttercup? Only to let me down.

> I think every parent would rather work on preventing homosexual orientation than have to deal with it after it is manifest.

I forbid you to breed. You clearly have no idea how to raise children, and I worry about anyone who has the misfortune to spend any amount of time with you, as I strongly suspect that your idiocy rubs off.

> We are abandoning parents and children by allowing the promoters of alienated sex of all kinds to control the media, research, and public discussion.

It was having homosexuality in the diagnostic manual that was not due to science, stupid.

They might have meant that three out of four boys who had "experimented" with homosexual sex at age 16 were in heterosexual relationships by 25.

Reparative therapy for homosexuals works just as well as reparative therapy to turn women into men.
Why are you talking about recidivism for pedophiles? Weren't we talking about homosexuals? Most pedophiles are heterosexual males.
It's neither illegal, immoral nor dangerous to "seek sexual relief" through homosexuality.

How do you prevent homosexual orientation? Besides not having many sons, that is...
How is homosexuality "alienated sex"?